Erhalten Sie Zugang zu diesem und mehr als 300000 Büchern ab EUR 5,99 monatlich.
- Herausgeber: Madison & Adams Press
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
Denying terrorists sanctuary has become a pillar of U.S. defense strategy since the September 11, 2001 (9/11) attacks. Violent extremist organizations in North Africa, such as the group al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), have used remote and sparsely populated areas in the Sahara for protection from security forces to conduct a range of terrorist activities, such as training, planning, and logistics.1 Despite the time elapsed since the 9/11 attacks, and the resources dedicated to denying sanctuary globally, the concept of sanctuary remains largely unexplored and poorly understood. This monograph proposes a functional understanding of sanctuary and offers fresh ideas to deny it using a detailed case study of the most notorious of these North African terrorists, Mokhtar Belmokhtar, from his arrival in Mali in the late 1990s, until the French intervention in early 2013. Contents: On Sanctuary Terrain: Geographic and Human Characteristics of Saharan Sanctuary Sanctuary Seekers in the Sahara Denial of Sanctuary: Ends, Ways, and Means
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 82
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2018
Das E-Book (TTS) können Sie hören im Abo „Legimi Premium” in Legimi-Apps auf:
Ähnliche
Terrorist Sanctuary in the Sahara
Table of Contents
November 2017
The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. Authors of Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) and U.S. Army War College (USAWC) Press publications enjoy full academic freedom, provided they do not disclose classified information, jeopardize operations security, or misrepresent official U.S. policy. Such academic freedom empowers them to offer new and sometimes controversial perspectives in the interest of furthering debate on key issues. This report is cleared for public release; distribution is unlimited.
∗∗∗∗∗
This publication is subject to Title 17, United States Code, Sections 101 and 105. It is in the public domain and may not be copyrighted.
∗∗∗∗∗
Comments pertaining to this report are invited and should be forwarded to: Director, Strategic Studies Institute and U.S. Army War College Press, U.S. Army War College, 47 Ashburn Drive, Carlisle, PA 17013-5010.
∗∗∗∗∗
All Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) and U.S. Army War College (USAWC) Press publications may be downloaded free of charge from the SSI website. Hard copies of certain reports may also be obtained free of charge while supplies last by placing an order on the SSI website. Check the website for availability. SSI publications may be quoted or reprinted in part or in full with permission and appropriate credit given to the U.S. Army Strategic Studies Institute and U.S. Army War College Press, U.S. Army War College, Carlisle, PA. Contact SSI by visiting our website at the following address: ssi.armywarcollege.edu.
∗∗∗∗∗
The Strategic Studies Institute and U.S. Army War College Press publishes a quarterly email newsletter to update the national security community on the research of our analysts, recent and forthcoming publications, and upcoming conferences sponsored by the Institute. Each newsletter also provides a strategic commentary by one of our research analysts. If you are interested in receiving this newsletter, please subscribe on the SSI website at the following address: ssi.armywarcollege.edu /newsletter/.
FOREWORD
Sanctuary is a concept not encompassed in military doctrine or government policy, yet denying sanctuary has become the cornerstone of American counterterrorism efforts abroad and a pillar of U.S. defense strategy. Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Guido's probing inquiry, exhaustive research, and innovative analysis on terrorist sanctuary in the Saharan Desert provides critical insights into this understudied idea underpinning so much contemporary defense policy.
History demonstrates the U.S. Army is no stranger to denying sanctuary. The recent surrender of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, ending a conflict lasting more than 50 years, reveals that terrorists and criminals using sanctuary can be defeated. Unfortunately, U.S. efforts to deny terrorist sanctuary in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya have fallen short. Through a detailed case study of a group of al-Qaeda terrorists who found sanctuary in the Saharan deserts of Northern Mali, Lieutenant Colonel Guido develops a schema to better understand sanctuary, as well as the ways and means to control and ultimately defeat terrorists who use sanctuary for protection.
Lieutenant Colonel Guido's contribution helps commanders, staffs, strategic thinkers, and policymakers understand and attack sanctuary. This monograph provides insight into the operational details, as well as the logic of sanctuary-seeking terrorists, which could be used to inform war games and staff exercises. Strategic thinkers and policymakers, on the other hand, will find much to review here regarding the objectives for future counterterrorism and counterinsurgency strategies and policies. Whether a practitioner or thinker, Lieutenant Colonel Guido's study is a needed addition to the contemporary literature on terrorism and insurgency, and his work is long overdue after 15 years of war focused on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations — much of the brunt of which the U.S. Army has borne.
DOUGLAS C. LOVELACE, JR. Director
Strategic Studies Institute and U.S. Army War College Press
SUMMARY
Denying terrorists sanctuary has become a pillar of U.S. defense strategy since the September 11, 2001 (9/11) attacks. Violent extremist organizations in North Africa, such as the group al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), have used remote and sparsely populated areas in the Sahara for protection from security forces to conduct a range of terrorist activities, such as training, planning, and logistics. Despite the time elapsed since the 9/11 attacks, and the resources dedicated to denying sanctuary globally, the concept of sanctuary remains largely unexplored and poorly understood. This monograph proposes a functional understanding of sanctuary and offers fresh ideas to deny it using a detailed case study of the most notorious of these North African terrorists, Mokhtar Belmokhtar, from his arrival in Mali in the late 1990s, until the French intervention in early 2013. This interdisciplinary inquiry uses a wide range of open-source documents, as well as anthropological, sociological, and political science research, including interviews with a former Belmokhtar hostage, Ambassador Robert Fowler, to construct a picture of what a day in the life of a Saharan sanctuary-seeking terrorist is like in order to provide further insight into terrorist sanctuary and explore ways and means to deny or control it.
There are various actors involved in sanctuary, and understanding those actors and their relationships is central to a developing a method to deny sanctuary. There are those who own the space, sanctuary providers or owners, and those who seek to gain from providing the space, rent-seekers or landlords. The owners who control the space may not necessarily be the same as the landlords who are seeking rents to administer the space. The owners of the sanctuary in the region being examined are the pastoral families who live in these areas. Rent-seekers, or landlords, whether chiefs, criminal kingpins, or political appointees from the government, are often imposed upon the owners. Finally, sanctuary-seekers require the space and are usually those paying for using it. While those using sanctuary may not necessarily be the same as those who are paying, evidence indicates Belmokhtar funded his sanctuary—a tenant who paid his own bills.
Geography and people matter. Terrorists, criminals, and insurgents use remote places in the Sahara because it offers protection. The operational effects of the size, scale, and diversity of Saharan geography cannot be overstated. Military operations across this vast expanse realize many elements of the failed Desert One rescue attempt in Iran: sandstorms, temperature, distance, communication, security, and interaction with local population. While the geography of this region is imposing, people matter more. Those in the Sahara live a difficult life but have a very keen sense of history, understanding of the terrain, and pride in their identity. Importantly, Saharan society is not inherently compatible with Wahhabism, Salafism, and fundamentalist Islam. Quite the opposite: the complex social structure specifically adapted to the difficult environmental and political conditions of desert life would be heretical to orthodox Islam. The variance and high degree of adaptability or flexibility in kinship relations means tribal politics are complex and dynamic.
It is often assumed that sanctuary is cost-free: lack of central authority or poor governance is interpreted to mean terrorists can move in and establish their operations. These Saharan sanctuary areas have existing social structures, however, and local populations with needs seek to impose costs on sanctuary-seekers. These costs, called rent, could be expressed through cash transactions, through payment in providing services, goods exchange, or even political capital. Marriage and other social contracts could constitute a form of payment through alliance-building.
Actions since the 9/11 attacks indicate the U.S. response to sanctuary is to concentrate operations against sanctuary-seekers. In other words, the focus has been upon finding and destroying enemy forces: Operation NEPTUNE SPEAR—the raid on the Osama bin Laden compound in Pakistan—is the most famous example. The present analysis suggests an alternative approach may be worth considering, an approach that focuses on the costs of creating and maintaining the sanctuary which terrorists require for protection. One solution to terrorist sanctuary may be to increase the costs of sanctuary to the sanctuary-seeker or to change the relationship of sanctuary supply and demand to a point where the costs of sanctuary to the terrorist are unsustainable or unacceptably high. In three words: raise the rent.
